Fallback compounding in arrears won't work

For more than a year I have been saying that "compounding fixing in arrears" is not an acceptable fallback mechanism for IBOR rates. In the answers to the ISDA consultation, it appears that I was the only respondent to indicate that he was totally opposed to this methodology. My answer to the consultation can be found on my advisory site. I have published a blog about my question on the mechanism when the consultation was announced in July 2018 and detailed the problems in my quant perspective on IBOR fallback consultation results.

Since then I have blogged about it and spoke about it at different seminars and conferences. To date, no public (or private that I'm aware of) comment indicating that there is actually a plan or a workaround to solve the important issues I'm demonstrating have been provided.

Following my presentation at the Quant Summit last Wednesday, Risk.net has published yesterday an article on the subject. From the article, I gather that the other experts they have interviewed, including experts close to the EUR RFR working group, agree with my analysis. The article does not provide comment by ISDA.

Just to summarise my argument, the IBOR term rate fallback problem is a term rate problem, not an overnight problem, even if the fallback answer is overnight-based. Term sheets for existing instruments may take advantage of the term fixing feature, a fallback cannot ignore that feature. The problem with the dates is illustrated in the figure below extracted from my presentations, with the dates lacking clarity in ISDA proposal in red.


The article can be found on Risk.net (subscription required) under the title

FRAs won’t work with standard Libor fallback, experts say


Feel free to contact me for analysis and advisory related to the LIBOR fallback.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Multi-curve framework book: new edition in progress

Image
Subject: Interest Rate Modelling in the Multi-curve Framework: Foundations, Evolution, and Implementation It has been more than 10 years since I wrote the first edition of the multi-curve framework book. What happened in those 10 years? Why did it take me so long to start a new version? It took me roughly 10 years to write the first edition. The reason it took so long at that time, was that I did not know that I was writing it! I thought I was writing a couple of pages on an obscured and theoretical idea that there was not a `` one curve to rule them all '' but multiple curves. It turned out that it became the actual practice for very clear and important reasons. That was the excuse for the first edition, what is the excuse for the second edition? Since the first edition, many things happen, in particular: March 2015: BCBS - IOSCO: margin requirements for non-centrally cleared derivatives and mandatory variation margin July 2017: The future of LIBOR -- actually it
Read more

Rigged: part 1 - Will there be a part 2?

Image
I have been reading book “Rigged: The Incredible True Story of the Whistleblowers Jailed after Exposing the Rotten Heart of the Financial” (Andy Verity, Flint, June 2023) for some time. It was published several month ago, but I just finished it. To my defence, I have to say that I don’t feel comfortable reading fiction where the “bad guys” are systematically winning by cheating. The book is the story of the miscarriage of justice done in the LIBOR manipulation story. The book content did not surprise me. For anybody having worked on a (swap) trading desk, it is clear that what was described by the accusation was impossible. It is not possible for some middle level trader to create a multi-year, multi-desk, multi-bank international conspiracy over open lines, broker lines, on open offices etc. without all around them, including compliance and senior management to be fully aware of what is going on. Moreover the regulators cannot be ignorant of the situation, except pleading complete in
Read more

A personal statement on the IOSCO Statement on Alternatives to USD Libor

IOSCO has issued a document called “Principles for Financial Benchmarks” in 2013. As such it acted as an (unofficial/unelected) lawmaker. On 3 July 2023, the same IOSCO issued a “ Statement on Alternatives to USD Libor ”. The Statement looks like a tribunal judgement from a trial with no public hearing, no witness, and no defense right from a tribunal with no mandate to judge. And publish on the day before Independence Day! Some personal comments on the document. Transparency The statement indicated “Administrators should consider whether to improve the transparency of their rates". The IOSCO document lack minimum transparency. It does not indicate in any way the “varying degrees of vulnerability of concern“ of the analysed benchmarks. The name of the benchmark are not even indicated. This creates a culpability by association to all non-SOFR benchmarks. The statement refers to a Review of Alternatives to USD Libor ; to my knowledge, the review itself is not available. The st
Read more